"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Tyrianth]

that's life.

find a hobby you can make a little money from and build it from there. The VAST majority of the population doesn't wake up excited to go to work.

And when a good chunk of those people lose their jobs as they get replaced with machines, then what? We have millions of people trying to re-enter the workforce on top of the millions of people who are currently looking for a job. With even less jobs than ever before. Should we let them live in poverty due to the lack of human-workable jobs? Or should make sure that at least their basic needs are met so that poverty doesn't increase, so that crime doesn't increase and so that the economy doesn't shatter?

[Dug]

that's life.

find a hobby you can make a little money from and build it from there. The VAST majority of the population doesn't wake up excited to go to work.

That's life, currently. In the distant future we will (yes will cause it's not a question of if but when) get to a point of so much automation that there will have to be people that don't work, and they're going to look for things that they enjoy doing. Pretty much all of human history is how can we make our lives easier and more enjoyable.

[LazarusLong]

Let me know when we have matter replicators.

With a current progress of robotics and additive manufacturing? By 2050 we will have something that can produce something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

[Tijuana]

Part of the problem with how social welfare programs are perceived is that people think it's always the same people in the program, even though studies show career welfare recipients are extremely low. The notion that that the majority of people on assistance have been there their whole lives is just nonsense.

[alexw]

Why even allow them to become homeless? Free housing for all!

If its built by robots why not?

[Dug]

Part of the problem with how social welfare programs are perceived is that people think it's always the same people in the program, even though studies show career welfare recipients are extremely low. The notion that that the majority of people on assistance have been there their whole lives is just nonsense.

For them its the "bad apple spoils the bunch" logic which then goes flying out the window for a bunch of topics/policies they are in favor of for whatever reason.

[Theinquisition]

Would you agree in CEO's getting the so called "golden handshakes"? Many years salary for having screwed up, then getting "fired" as a result. Or is it just for the "low people" who should get nothing?

I think the two are unrelated.

I don't like the idea of golden parachutes, however if a company is dumb enough o promise that to a CEO in writing, than they should have to pay it. You, as a consumer, have the right to not to business with companies that you find morally and ethically objectionable. If enough people do that, a company will either change their policies, or go under.

a good example would be the Wounded Warrior Project, a American charity organization that helps inured U.S. veterans. The CEO and COO engaged in some really unethical behavior and people stopped donating to the charity (it's huge). the board of directors fired the CEO and COO and are in the process of rebuilding the organization from the ground up.

Once again, I'm okay with Social nets that help people when they are down, but to permanently pay someone to not do anything for nothing...well, just rubs me the wrong way.

- - - Updated - - -

But why does that bother you? They fall in the net and decide to stay there "on their phone", jeez what a fulfilling life, right? While you, continue to work and get all this extra income to spend on super nice/fun things that that person doesn't have because they're okay with the bare minimum. Unless you just don't think people should get a bare minimum if they refuse to work. They suffer in the end by having a lame life but at least they're not starving to death.

It bothers me because me, the tax payer, is footing the bill.

If someone is that lazy and or useless, they should just starve to death. Darwinism.

[Gamdwelf]

Let me know when we have matter replicators.

- - - Updated - - -



that's life.

find a hobby you can make a little money from and build it from there. The VAST majority of the population doesn't wake up excited to go to work.

I mean I got a down payment for my house from my hobby, but it's not something I could support myself on. But I can barely get out of bed to go to work its so fucking shitty and depressing.

[Dug]

It bothers me because me, the tax payer, is footing the bill.

If someone is that lazy and or useless, they should just starve to death. Darwinism.

Well I can't agree with that. Not much to discuss there that's just a basic fundamental difference in how we view the value of human lives.

[Gamdwelf]

I think the two are unrelated.

I don't like the idea of golden parachutes, however if a company is dumb enough o promise that to a CEO in writing, than they should have to pay it. You, as a consumer, have the right to not to business with companies that you find morally and ethically objectionable. If enough people do that, a company will either change their policies, or go under.

a good example would be the Wounded Warrior Project, a American charity organization that helps inured U.S. veterans. The CEO and COO engaged in some really unethical behavior and people stopped donating to the charity (it's huge). the board of directors fired the CEO and COO and are in the process of rebuilding the organization from the ground up.

Once again, I'm okay with Social nets that help people when they are down, but to permanently pay someone to not do anything for nothing...well, just rubs me the wrong way.

- - - Updated - - -



It bothers me because me, the tax payer, is footing the bill.

If someone is that lazy and or useless, they should just starve to death. Darwinism.

Lol starve to death? Says the guy who was in the us military which is welfare for stupid people.

[Theinquisition]

And when a good chunk of those people lose their jobs as they get replaced with machines, then what? We have millions of people trying to re-enter the workforce on top of the millions of people who are currently looking for a job. With even less jobs than ever before. Should we let them live in poverty due to the lack of human-workable jobs? Or should make sure that at least their basic needs are met so that poverty doesn't increase, so that crime doesn't increase and so that the economy doesn't shatter?

functional unemployment is a bitch, but you know what, people said the same shit when the steam engine was invested, the Cotton gin, computers, etc etc.

Everytime something new is invested, jobs are created. Did the world end when VCR's became obsolete?

[bloodmoth13]

The problem with how people see this is that they view it as 'lazy people get govt assistance for not working' which, yeah, duh, they do, but in many places they already get this in the form of unemployment benefits, which if they didnt exist and the person couldnt get work then the only option left would be crime.

What universal income REALLY is, is 'hard working EMPLOYED people get govt assistance', which works to reduce the risk of seeking employment for unemployed and those on sickness benefits, who lose their reliable income to join a workforce with low job security. Also since its a flat benefit to every citizen, then they only stand to GAIN from getting employment with less risks!

The universal aid would also reduce the need for many other government subsidies like sickness benefits, unemployment benefits and food stamps etc.

One last point, is that not everyone is employable, which only gets worse with immigration, population booms and health issues. Menial jobs are getting replaced by robots and the ones that are left are too few for the number of people applying, creating a situation where there are more people than jobs to employ them, resulting in an easily exploitable workforce with no job security. So not everyone that isnt working is lazy, some are hard workers that refuse to be exploited, some are just unable to find work in their field of expertise, and some are simply unable to find job vacancies.

So with jobs declining and populations increasing, the gap between the rich and poor is just going to keep increasing, chewing away the middle class and resulting in a 1% upper class where everyone else scraps for slavelike labour or remains unemployed and cannot feed themselves.

I think universal income will be absolutely required in the future, maybe soon maybe in many years, but it will be required.

[Theinquisition]

With a current progress of robotics and additive manufacturing? By 2050 we will have something that can produce something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Well, I guess we can have that conversation in 2050.

[Tijuana]

Well, I guess we can have that conversation in 2050.

I think you missed the point of his Douglas Adams joke...

[alexw]

"When robots..." is going to get difficult. So let's go full robot for a second. All of the moochers now are going to have literally zero jobs available. There's going to have to come a time when the government does everything, no? They provide the food. They provide the housing, etc.

Think about it for a second before answering.

But even then, when robots can do everything (outside of select jobs of course) why is money even needed? Don't get me wrong this is way in the future but the cheap-labor jobs are the scariest because it's much closer for food related jobs to go robotics before anything else. I'm actually extremely surprised that burger flippers, fry tenders, etc aren't done by robots right now. We have robots building cars. We can't have a robot with a spatula as an arm? Then spits the condiments, etc? You would literally need 1 person each shift to make sure there's fries next to the fry robot. Hamburgs next to the hamburg robot, etc.

No the government does not provide these things. Capitalistic privately owned business still create and make all these. The government however uses its taxation/redistribution powers to square the circle. They tax capital and give that out as a UBI which then returns back to capital in the form of income via consumption spending, which is then ready to be re-taxed again. We continue to use money and do it this way because it continues to provide the capitalistic impulses to be as productive as possible and to create new products better than your competitors (you don't you go out of business and your competitors replace you).

[Theinquisition]

I mean I got a down payment for my house from my hobby, but it's not something I could support myself on. But I can barely get out of bed to go to work its so fucking shitty and depressing.

Find something that inspires you?

Hell dude, find a good hustle, when I was at my peak (26) I danced at bachelorette parties and sold plaster cast molds of my dick. It wasn't my ideal occupation, but it helped make ends meet.

[Tyrianth]

functional unemployment is a bitch, but you know what, people said the same shit when the steam engine was invested, the Cotton gin, computers, etc etc.

Everytime something new is invested, jobs are created. Did the world end when VCR's became obsolete?

There's a huge difference when one industry replaces another. Automation will indeed create jobs. Maybe even 100s of thousands of jobs, bit it also has the potential to displace millions of other jobs. The whole point of automation is that it can easily replace people at an extremely.large scale.

[alexw]

Not real hot on giving away money for doing nothing.

There will be no choice and no reason not to do so. It won't come from taxing your labor after all, but the income generated from the output of robots.

[Theinquisition]

Lol starve to death? Says the guy who was in the us military which is welfare for stupid people.

Sigh.

You do realize that it is harder to get into the U.s. military than most 4 year universities right?

I mean, who is the stupid one here? The guy who whines that he can barely find the motivation to get out of bed in the morning with a "woe is me" attitude, or the guy who will finish his 4 year degree in less than a year with not 1 penny of student debt thanks to the GI bill.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you missed the point of his Douglas Adams joke...

Probably, im in a shit mood.

[Jaylock]

#2 isn't really correct, since a large part of what those taxes pay for is existing social benefit programs and their administration, and while the BI payments are going to be higher, the administrative overhead is far lower.

#3 isn't the big deal you think, because the "Mr. Taxpayer" who's paying more is upper middle class and arguably not paying enough, already. I'm not gonna take the cries of a lawyer complaining about their tax load all that seriously, when it's put up against those struggling in actual poverty.

2) Theoretically there may be some cost savings of administration, but I highly doubt the government is going to cut government jobs in social benefits programs. Its something that they would EXPAND with a "basic income" program. You think they would entirely replace welfare with "basic income."? Especially if the proposed basic welfare would be less than what people are already receiving on welfare and other social benefits programs.

3) This is your problem right here. The bolded section. Who are you to decide who is or isn't paying "enough" taxes? What if that laywer's chosen lifestyle requires that they make 200k a year to pay for it? You think you (or anyone else) has any right to dictate or deem what lifestyle they choose to live as necessary or not?

I'm afraid your liberal mindset needs to change. Because the moment when one group starts deciding how much another group is paying in taxes is "fair" or not, it runs a slippery slope into dictatorship and personal freedoms being taken away.